This brings his annual war spending to a new high of 192 billion for the year.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/22/war.spending/index.html

Just for comparison sake, the direct cost of 9/11 was around 27 billion.

http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/aug02/homeland.asp

Why not have Harry Reid and his buddies write a nasty letter to GWB? He can then auction it on ebay and raise the money. Then Reid can try to take credit for raising the money.

The Republicans and corporatists have singlehandedly turned America into the most indebted nation in the world, and the worst part is, many of them don't see a problem with that.

Its a good job the US generates so much wealth.

This President spends bucks like its going outta fashion.

Not very conservative tho.

--------- GooD -------

Give THE MAN { President Bush } what he wants and needs.
OK,if he ask's fer a fully stocked Cigar Humidor for his Oval
Office to help inspire visits by Rush Limbaugh,i'd have to say...
Nyet

Not very conservative tho.

No, it's not. That's why is so ironic that the U.S. refers to him as a "conservative" president.

Not very conservative tho.
It's pathetic, actually. Bush is no conservative.

and nothing for children needing healthcare. How disgusting is this????

and nothing for children needing healthcare. How disgusting is this????

Well, I can tell you that it is NOT disgusting enough for the Smirking Cretin's cheerleaders to stop supporting his despicable actions.

______________________________

Money for sick children?!??????.............."Nah. We can't afford such silliness. I'll veto that costly proposal."

Hundreds of billions more for an illegal war????.............."Sure! There's always more billions available for ill-advised pre-emptive wars."

Now the Bush regime says they won't commit the same mistakes in Katrina and Kansas in California as half a million US citizens are moved out of their homes. Most of California's national guard is STUCK IN IRAQ.

Now how disgusting his this????

This President spends bucks like its going outta fashion.

Not very conservative tho.

Ah, but it IS consistent with the stated goals of the conservatives in America. (what you would know in Europe as neo-liberals)

They want to shink our government until "it is small enough to be drowned in a bathtub."

So they are bankrupting the government and burying us so far under debt that we can no longer afford the social programs that conservatives hate so much... like health care for children.

All together now....................................

HATE,HATE,HATE,HATE,HATE, HATE GEORGE BUSH.

HATE,HATE,HATE,HATE,HATE, HATE GEORGE BUSH.

C'mon everybody!

HATE,HATE,HATE,HATE,HATE, HATE GEORGE BUSH.

C'mon everybody!
Ring ring ring ring ring ring ring, bananaphone! (http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/badgerphone)

It's bananular!

watch out, the font police will be here soon!

Childish... The lot a ya.
Nothin new in dat.

So, if Congress disagrees with it, then Congress will reject it. Or doesn't the American Congress control the money? I thought the major reason for electing the Democrats was to control the spending on Iraq.

It's interesting to see people get so animated even when no one is arguing against them :rolleyes:

Ah, but it IS consistent with the stated goals of the conservatives in America. (what you would know in Europe as neo-liberals)

They want to shink our government until "it is small enough to be drowned in a bathtub."

So they are bankrupting the government and burying us so far under debt that we can no longer afford the social programs that conservatives hate so much... like health care for children.
So Dharm,you think this is a conservative conspiracy,to bankrupt the US,so it can never afford any social policies in the future?


I think it shows the character of the man when he can spend a trillion on Iraq,
god knows how much on missile shields for Europe,yet,wont give a few extra crumbs off the table for Americas children and sick,nice guy.

and nothing for children needing healthcare. How disgusting is this????

Oh he's willing to spend for children's healthcare. He's even willing to increase spending on the issue. Just not as much as you do. To label it as nothing is disingenuous on your part.

We are not the most indebted nation in the world. (only in dollar amount)

If you take into account how much we put out and take in, our deby is manageable.


The Republicans and corporatists have singlehandedly turned America into the most indebted nation in the world, and the worst part is, many of them don't see a problem with that.

Agreed

It's pathetic, actually. Bush is no conservative.

So Dharm,you think this is a conservative conspiracy,to bankrupt the US,so it can never afford any social policies in the future?

They have been quite open about their goals. How else could they guarentee "smaller government" for any extended period of time? If they just disbanded sections of government after they get elected then there is nothing stopping the next President from just recreating it all again. So instead they are creating the situation where it is not possible to sustain the governent operation of social programs they hate.

Is there any other logical explaination for why they all supported Bush's out of control spending?


I think it shows the character of the man when he can spend a trillion on Iraq,
god knows how much on missile shields for Europe,yet,wont give a few extra crumbs off the table for Americas children and sick,nice guy.

I agree. But look how all the conservatives in Congress are still in support of Bush. Despite how unpopular Bush's policies have been, the Republicans and Conservative Democrats remain in lock step behind those policies when it comes down to their actual votes in Congress and what the Republican candidates say in public.

Bush's policies are basically the same as Ronald Reagan, but Bush has a Conservative Congress protecting him and his policies.

They claim that Bush isn't conservative, but all the conservatives still support him on not only his policies, but also his mere whims.

We are not the most indebted nation in the world. (only in dollar amount)

If you take into account how much we put out and take in, our deby is manageable.

You think $9-10 TRILLION dollars is a "manageable" debt?

Good God, what would you consider unmanageable?

A "Google"? :lolhit:

They have been quite open about their goals. How else could they guarentee "smaller government" for any extended period of time? If they just disbanded sections of government after they get elected then there is nothing stopping the next President from just recreating it all again. So instead they are creating the situation where it is not possible to sustain the governent operation of social programs they hate.

I honestly think you are crazy as a bedbug, Dharma. You weave the most bizarre webs of intrigue of anyone I know. Be careful of those black helicopters. They are hovering over your house even as I post. Better hurry and get that tin foil hat to wear.

You think $9-10 TRILLION dollars is a "manageable" debt?
When we pull in 12.5 trillion a year, yeah, it is. Is it a "good" situation, no.

Money for sick children?!??????
What do you care? It's for "stupid, gullible" American children.

When we pull in 12.5 trillion a year, yeah, it is. Is it a "good" situation, no.


True. If you would like to see more numbers, check out the "economy" section of various countries in the CIA World Fact Book: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/

If you look at any nation's debt compared to GDP, you will see interesting figures worldwide. In fact, the U.S. is not as badly indebted as many nations. However, we are not doing as well as we should be considering we are in a relatively peaceful period despite the Iraq/Afghan war, and there's no good reason why our nation shouldn't have a balanced budget.

I fully concur.

Ideally we would have a better debt picture as well as a better balance of trade picture. I am more worried about the balance of trade issue than the domestic debt issue. Only those who live a minimal existence live totally debt free. Most people manage to live very well carrying a certain amount of debt. Problems arise when the amount of debt you carry exceeds your ability to pay it off. That is not happening in America.

I am more worried about the balance of trade issue than the domestic debt issue.
DING! DING! DING! That's exactly right, Frogger. We can't manufacture in this country anymore (for a multitude of reasons), and THAT'S what's gonna kill our economy, not our debt.

What about the mortgage problem in the US,whats it called,'sublime'.

Isnt too mant Americans buying homes they simply cant afford.

But in the mean time no health insurance funding for America's children.:mad:

What about the mortgage problem in the US,whats it called,'sublime'.

Isnt too mant Americans buying homes they simply cant afford.

No, it is dishonest lenders conning people into taking loans with terms that they cannot afford, with Adjustable Rate Mortgages that start at a low rate but will rise in a few years, usually to way more than anyone can reasonably afford.
What makes it a scam is the sales pitch where they tell people, "These loans are only intended to be temporary, in a year you can refinance to a fixed rate."
What they did not tell the people is that merely getting an adjustable rate loan LOWERS your credit score and thus makes it unlikely you will ever be able to refinance that loan.
That, combined with job losses the shrinking value of the dollar and wage decreases has caused a huge wave of foreclosures that started in the subprime market but has now moved into standard mortgages and credit cards. The US dollar is now even, 1 for 1 with the canadian dollar for the first time in my memory.

No, it is dishonest lenders conning people into taking loans with terms that they cannot afford, with Adjustable Rate Mortgages that start at a low rate but will rise in a few years, usually to way more than anyone can reasonably afford.
That's why they're called "Adjustable Rate Mortgages", moron. People went with 'em specifically because they purchased a bigger home than they could afford in the first place. Their only concern was their monthly payment. IOW, they were rank amateurs.

What about this simple fucking concept do you not understand!? Is everyone in your life a child?

Just outta curiosity, when you buy a car, is your only concern your monthly payment? If so, then I understand. You're a fool - you don't need to respond.

This is why most poor people fail. They're stupid as well.

DING! DING! DING! That's exactly right, Frogger. We can't manufacture in this country anymore (for a multitude of reasons), and THAT'S what's gonna kill our economy, not our debt.

Now, economics is not my strongsuit, but this seems like an overly pessimistic assessment. Specifically, our manufacturing sector has converted to high-tech (due to an educated/highly-skilled workforce and strong patent/copywright law) and bulky items (due to expense of transporting bulky items), and we're outsourcing labor-intensive production to countries where labor is cheap. That seems like a healthy transition for our economy in the long run.

Especially considering the geographical nature of the country. Transporting lots of bulky goods over thousands of miles to make isn't economically viable. It's far easier to make lots of small parts for cheap, then assemble and sell the whole big package.

On another note, whenever I hear people gripe about the cost of the Iraq war, I am forced to remind them that the cost is well within the defense discresionary budget. Conversely, did you know that one year of federal heathcare spending costs more than the entire Iraq war? Our domestic budget is absolutely gargantuan, and it's out of control. Spending on social security and and medicare is actually outpacing the growth of the economy. At this rate, we face economic collapse within 50 years.

Just my 3 cents.

That's why they're called "Adjustable Rate Mortgages", moron. People went with 'em specifically because they purchased a bigger home than they could afford in the first place. Their only concern was their monthly payment. IOW, they were rank amateurs.


Well, I hate to say it, but dharma DOES have a legitimate concern here. It's widely-understood that mortgage companies have been engaging in practices designed to screw financially-stupid homeowners through ARMs. Granted, buyers share some blame, but setting up stupid people for foreclosures is somewhat blameworthy as well, not to mention dangerous for the overall economy, as we're now witnessing.

What they did not tell the people is that merely getting an adjustable rate loan LOWERS your credit score and thus makes it unlikely you will ever be able to refinance that loan.
That's simply UNTRUE. If you don't make your payments, then (and only then) that happens. What an ARM could possibly do is affect your income to debt ratio, which may (in effect) make it difficult for you to purchase additional items, but that's true of any loan. Refinancing, OTOH, usually isn't a problem UNLESS you purchased something you couldn't afford in the first place. THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

Spending on social security and and medicare is actually outpacing the growth of the economy. At this rate, we face economic collapse within 50 years.



A horrifying thought.
Chances are I won't be here to see it, but my kids and grandkids will.
What in god's name can an individual do to protect themselves from this??????

Well, I hate to say it, but dharma DOES have a legitimate concern here. It's widely-understood that mortgage companies have been engaging in practices designed to screw financially-stupid homeowners through ARMs. Granted, buyers share some blame, but setting up stupid people for foreclosures is somewhat blameworthy as well, not to mention dangerous for the overall economy, as we're now witnessing.
Fair enough, but I don't see how the stupid are being screwed over here (caveat emptor, much???), and with that said, how would screwing them over be to the mortgage company's advantage? I mean, they're the ones who leveraged the loan in the first place. If, however, they BOUGHT the loan from a secondary mortgage lender, then maybe there's some room for someone to perpetrate a scam, but even then, the big lending houses still have all the pertinent information, i.e., age, income, credit score, purchasing history, etc., etc. My question is, why would they put themselves in that situation? That's just bad business, which obviously, isn't something 20 billon dollar companies are known for conducting.

Its my understanding that these big US companies passed some of the risk on ,by selling some to European Finance houses,Deutsche Banks name has cropped up,thus lessening the risk to the original lender.

Also,I dont know if it applies these days but,years ago I learnt that one of the best guides to see how the US economy is doing,is by looking at construction of new homes figures,surely this ''subprime'' incident will have a major knock on in construction,effecting millions of US workers.

This is why most poor people fail. They're stupid as well.

And many of them expect the Government to bail them out of their stupidness. Hillary Clinton is righ up their alley!

No good reason ......... VERY TRUE The only reason is too many social programs. Give me Give Me Give me.
(I don't want to work to earn it, just give me)



If you look at any nation's debt compared to GDP, you will see interesting figures worldwide. In fact, the U.S. is not as badly indebted as many nations. However, we are not doing as well as we should be considering we are in a relatively peaceful period despite the Iraq/Afghan war, and there's no good reason why our nation shouldn't have a balanced budget.

Originally Posted by Freethinker
Money for sick children?!??????

What do you care?

I was simply pointing out what the true priorities are of the ReichWing scum who run this country. The cabal that you and Trav and Decka and Frogger and gmsisko and REDWHITEBLUE think are such wonderful leaders.

It's for "stupid, gullible" American children.

True. We must realize however that not all of them will grow to be useful (yet clueless) tools for the Rightwing, such as Trav and gmsisko.

I was simply pointing out what the true priorities are of the ReichWing scum who run this country. The cabal that you and Trav and Decka and Frogger and gmsisko and REDWHITEBLUE think are such wonderful leaders.





Just when did I post that I thought George W. Bush was a wonderful leader? I think GWB has been a disaster. He made promises he did not keep. He has not been firm enough concerning border security. He invaded Iraq, something thought was wrong. After invading he disbanded the Iraqi army, police force and Ba'ath Party, three things that have directly led to the chaos that is Iraq today.

No, Freethinker, I don't think GWB is a wonderful leader. I just think he is a better leader than the Democrat alternative would have been.

Just when did I post that I thought George W. Bush was a wonderful leader? I think GWB has been a disaster. He made promises he did not keep. He has not been firm enough concerning border security. He invaded Iraq, something thought was wrong. After invading he disbanded the Iraqi army, police force and Ba'ath Party, three things that have directly led to the chaos that is Iraq today.

No, Freethinker, I don't think GWB is a wonderful leader. I just think he is a better leader than the Democrat alternative would have been.


Froggggger... "better leader than the Democrat alternative"??? Good grief Bush has been a disaster. You know it.
The world knows it. Only Bush's dogs (Barney and Laura) don't know it.

Consider had the voters been able in 2000 to elect the President they actually selected:

Most likely there would not have been a 9/11. President Gore would have continued the focus on terrorism that Bush dropped upon accomplishing his coup of the White House.

We would not be in an illegal war in Iraq.

The world would still respect and look up to us as the leader of the free world.

Diplomacy, not military force, would keep us safe.

President Gore would have pushed for a safer environment. We would be focusing on stopping global warming rather than still discussing it.

How can you say Bush would have been a better leader????

Froggggger... "better leader than the Democrat alternative"??? Good grief Bush has been a disaster. You know it.


The world knows it. Only Bush's dogs (Barney and Laura) don't know it.


Consider had the voters been able in 2000 to elect the President they actually selected:

Most likely there would not have been a 9/11. President Gore would have continued the focus on terrorism that Bush dropped upon accomplishing his coup of the White House.

We would not be in an illegal war in Iraq.

The world would still respect and look up to us as the leader of the free world.

Diplomacy, not military force, would keep us safe.

President Gore would have pushed for a safer environment. We would be focusing on stopping global warming rather than still discussing it.

How can you say Bush would have been a better leader????

Well, you have definitely explained the sensibility of your position.

Thank you, Old Timer.

Just when did I post that I thought George W. Bush was a wonderful leader? I think GWB has been a disaster. He made promises he did not keep. He has not been firm enough concerning border security. He invaded Iraq, something thought was wrong. After invading he disbanded the Iraqi army, police force and Ba'ath Party, three things that have directly led to the chaos that is Iraq today.

No, Freethinker, I don't think GWB is a wonderful leader. I just think he is a better leader than the Democrat alternative would have been.

*************************************************

Um.Oh Wellian.I guess Bush dint merit a mere Thanks for
Gettin us out of a Recession and also doing it with Lower taxes.

Given 9/11 and his going on Offense to make sure our Country
wasn't attacked again,and it hasn't Been.

Putting the entire planet on notice that We { America] Means
business and won't tolerate any more Terrorism,even some little
Cole bombing.

Wasn't directly responsible but did go along with Bipartisan efforts
to fuel pork barell spending and Big Democrat subsidies,like
Education and much in the way of Highway funding.Which
is easily felt when one drives along a highway,Interstate or their
local community.

Appointed a couple solid conservative Supreme court justice
that will NOT make a mockery out of the affairs of State thru
Looney Liberal interpretations.Like many a contemporary
Liberal appointee have.And will.

Hasn't of yet been a womanizing hyena,that seems more
concerned with getin his Cigar lit than buisness that supposed
to cross his desk.

Gave us a wonderfull and dignified First Lady that speaks softly
yet carries much weight in matters that attends to duties that
require decorum and protocol.Unlike some pesky agenda-driven
First Lady { Schrillary } who were more concerned {preoccupied}
with bein a White House enforcer than a Lady at all.
I still would find it Uncomplimetary to refer to a Hillary Clinton
as a Lady of any means.She's just a shrill,bossy meglomaniac.

I could go on.

Hey Fool, how many died under George Bush's watch compared to President Clinton's watch?

How many jobs were created under George Bush's watch compared to President Clinton's watch??

I rest my case.

This argument makes my brain weep.


Anybody remember what the actual topic was?

Hey Fool, how many died under George Bush's watch compared to President Clinton's watch?

How many jobs were created under George Bush's watch compared to President Clinton's watch??

I rest my case.

Well Clinton { Slick Willy } was preeminently responsible for 9/11
given those 19 Terrorist infiltrated *here under Visa that were
expired and Clinton Defunded the ability of Both the CIA/FBI to
effectively do their job.Plus -- ABLE DANGER --.

Clinton wasn't responsible for the Dire necessity of Avenging
and addressing 9/11.That was left on Bush's doorstep because
of the complete lackadaisical will of Clinton/Albright/Berger to
take seriously the seriousness of Bin Laden and al Qaeda.

Unemployment under Bush is about the same as Clinton.
Most the jobs created by Slcik Willy were fluff that involved
Wall Street Manipulations and a Boom Stock Market,that Slick boy
saw fit to burst before his Reign had expired.



* "here" as in under Clinton's Presidency.

Fool,

You are following the Karl Rove book. Blame President Clinton for anything bad. This won't work.

Bush needs to do something he has never done in his life: take responsibility.

Again, I rest my case.

Froggggger... "better leader than the Democrat alternative"??? Good grief Bush has been a disaster. You know it.








The world knows it. Only Bush's dogs (Barney and Laura) don't know it.


Consider had the voters been able in 2000 to elect the President they actually selected:

Most likely there would not have been a 9/11. President Gore would have continued the focus on terrorism that Bush dropped upon accomplishing his coup of the White House.

On this, IMHO, you're incorrect. The planning involved in acomplishing 9/11 was started long before that date. Who the sitting POTUS was at that point would not have made any difference. Hijacking 4 airliners and having three of them actually hit targets took a lot of work.

We would not be in an illegal war in Iraq.

Agreed. The Iraqi Idiot needed to go away, just not when he did. The U.S. & Britan had him pretty well in check and a seriouisly protacted action in Afganistan would have cooled his jets pretty well. He would have taken much less than the billion & perks (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=484162) he wanted just to keep breathing.

As a result of 9/11 our mission should have focused where it began, in Afganistan, with the end goal of dismantaling not only bin Laden's organization but the Taliban as well. Afganistan was ready to turn around, and have a better life.

The world would still respect and look up to us as the leader of the free world.

Diplomacy, not military force, would keep us safe.

Perhaps. Had we gone into Afganistan only, a multi-national force could have been encouraged out of the U.N. and rehabilitation would be done out of the world's economy rather than primarily the U.S. pockets. Good for the U.S., in all kinds of ways. However, we may have also gotten sucked into something else in the region and be in a similar position military involvement wise, but probably not in Iraq.

:drinktoth

Yep, you sure have explained your positon well, truthout. Calling the President's wife a dog does you much credit. Maybe you would now like to insult his two daughters in order to make your position even more clear.

That's why they're called "Adjustable Rate Mortgages", moron.

I never said they were not adjustable. You need to learn to comprehend what you read... or at least read before you respond so you don't make yourself look like an idiot... like you just did here.


People went with 'em specifically because they purchased a bigger home than they could afford in the first place.

AND THE SALES PITCH WAS TO CONVINCE THEM THAT THEY COULD AFFORD THEM BY TELLING THEM THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO REFINANCE... WHICH WAS A LIE. You should be very familiar with lies since you tell so many of them.

What part of that simple concept do you not understand?


Their only concern was their monthly payment. IOW, they were rank amateurs.

They weren't professional suckers like you, eh? :lolhit:


What about this simple fucking concept do you not understand!?

Obviously I understand it far better than you understand the scam I explained where they lie to people and claim they will be able to refinance the loan. Apparently that is too complicated a concept for your feeble mind to comprehend. No surprises there.


Is everyone in your life a child?

Just you Prat.

Just you.



Just outta curiosity, when you buy a car, is your only concern your monthly payment? If so, then I understand. You're a fool - you don't need to respond.

This is why most poor people fail. They're stupid as well.

They cannot all be a professional sucker like you Prat.

:lolhit:

That's simply UNTRUE. If you don't make your payments, then (and only then) that happens. What an ARM could possibly do is affect your income to debt ratio, which may (in effect) make it difficult for you to purchase additional items, but that's true of any loan. Refinancing, OTOH, usually isn't a problem UNLESS you purchased something you couldn't afford in the first place. THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

I love it when you argue your self in circles so you end up proving me right.
Especially because you are too stupid to realize what you did.

:lolhit:

Well, I hate to say it, but dharma DOES have a legitimate concern here.

Now why would you hate to say it when you know I am right?

AND THE SALES PITCH WAS TO CONVINCE THEM THAT THEY COULD AFFORD THEM BY TELLING THEM THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO REFINANCE... WHICH WAS A LIE.


And, of course that is George Bush's fault.

....whenever I hear people gripe about the cost of the Iraq war, I am forced to remind them that the cost is well within the defense discresionary budget.

Yes.

A so -called **Defense discretionary budget** that is insanely high. Beyond all reckoning. A **Defense discretionary budget** that sees far more than half a TRILLION of our taxdollars thrown away every year.

The money that is being spent in Iraq is a total waste. It is money that could have been spent for useful things right here inside the USA.



Conversely, did you know that one year of federal heathcare spending costs more than the entire Iraq war?

So?!?!?!?!

Spending money for the healthcare of American citizens is something that is good and admirable, something that should be applauded, something that is necessary.

Spending tax money for an illegal foreign misadventure like Iraq is tax money that might as well have been piled up in a huge goddamned pile and set afire, for all the fucking good the American Public has seen out of it.

....Our domestic budget is absolutely gargantuan, and it's out of control.

Spending money on the people who live in the United States is not money spent badly or unwisely.


Money-- even one red cent-- spent to fatten the bank accounts of corporations like Bechtel, Blackwater and Halliburton is what is out of goddamned control.

Spending on social security and and medicare is actually outpacing the growth of the economy.

Cut the insane amounts of money being spent on useless and ill-advised foreign WARS, and we'll have plenty of money to fund the things that this country needs.

At this rate, we face economic collapse within 50 years.

This country faces economic collapse in a far shorter time than that; but it is the money currently being thrown away on our so-called goddamned *Defense* that is the cause of this nation facing bankruptcy, not the social spending.

Social spending is a debt that will have to be funded by the taxpayers, one way or another.

Tax monies being spent on insane clusterfucks like *the Iraq war* is money that may as well have been dumped into the ocean.

No, it is dishonest lenders conning people into taking loans with terms that they cannot afford, with Adjustable Rate Mortgages that start at a low rate but will rise in a few years, usually to way more than anyone can reasonably afford.
What makes it a scam is the sales pitch where they tell people, "These loans are only intended to be temporary, in a year you can refinance to a fixed rate."
What they did not tell the people is that merely getting an adjustable rate loan LOWERS your credit score and thus makes it unlikely you will ever be able to refinance that loan.
That, combined with job losses the shrinking value of the dollar and wage decreases has caused a huge wave of foreclosures that started in the subprime market but has now moved into standard mortgages and credit cards. The US dollar is now even, 1 for 1 with the canadian dollar for the first time in my memory.

As usual we get some brillant insight here. In effect drama is telling us that companies lend money to people they know can't to repay it.
That's a sound business model.:rolleyes:

I think Dharma isnt far off the mark here.
I said earlier,that the risk taken by US mortgage lenders was spread out to other financial institutions,especially in Europe.

The lenders didnt do stringent enough background checks on the applicants,there was so much money to make,it was like Christmass everyday.

As usual we get some brillant insight here. In effect drama is telling us that companies lend money to people they know can't to repay it.
That's a sound business model.:rolleyes:
That's kinda what I got out of it.

I think Dharma isnt far off the mark here.
I said earlier,that the risk taken by US mortgage lenders was spread out to other financial institutions,especially in Europe.
These lending houses are 20 to 50 billion dollar corporations, Paul. Do you honestly think they get there by simply hedging their bets? It makes no sense on a multitude of levels. It's like robbing Peter to pay Paul; meanwhile NOBODY makes any money. It's the worst business model EVER DEVISED. I simply cannot believe (for the life of me) they intentionally put themselves in that position for a short-term gain. The real problem here, despite all the finger pointing, was stupidity, period. Interest rates were at a HISTORIC low point. Anyone who financed their home using an ARM (unless they were property flippers) were fucking dumbasses. The reason people purchased under a subprime option was because it made buying their dream home "affordable". Since 2004, interest rates have come up (duh), and the market is now stale (go figure). I bought a home in 2004, and lo and behold, I was secured on a 200,000-dollar note through Wells Fargo. Did I buy a 200,000-dollar home, Paul? No. Why? I can't afford it - I'd be scraping by. I did what EVERY consumer should do - I looked at amortization schedules, calculated monthly expenses, and budgeted for contingencies. Other people didn't do that; they bought their homes using their gut, not their head. Needless to say, I would've been scraping by if I had purchased a 200,000-dollar home at 5% on a 30 year fixed note. If I had decided to act on emotion, I could've financed with a 2 year ARM at 3%. My payments would've been totally manageable, but thankfully, I have a brain and I knew the rates would go up – meaning consequently, the fixed rates too. If that happened, there's simply NO WAY I could've afforded it. Anyone with a 3 digit IQ "knows" that. Caveat emptor. That's the bottom line.

Im not disputing that this was intentional.
What was happening,IMO,is that brokers were falsifying applications,to make a person on say $50,000pa,look like they were earning 80.

So what happens,the broker fills in the application,giving all the right answers,hey presto,you qualify for the mortgage.

The broker earns his commision,not giving a shit whether the loan is ever repaid or not.

The finance houses are to blame for NOT checking on the applicants financial situation enough,and the appicant os at fault for getting a mortgage,which they know,as you pointed out,they simply cannot afford to pay,once the interest rates go above a certain level.

So whats the outcome.

Tens,maybe hundreds of thousands of Americans are/have,defaulted on their mortgage.
Homes are being repocessed.
US finance houses are looking their money back.
The Europeans who bought into the operation,anticapating a quick buck,
find themselves out of pocket,so euro interest rates rise,to pay back,what they lost.

The losers.
US and European mortgage payers,whose interest rates go up,to bail out financia institutions who are to blame for Not doing enough background checks.
The subprime owners,who gambled and lost.
The winners.
Thebrokers,who ran laughing all the way to the bank.

and of course,the 4 man business,who makes 'for sale' signs.
Im telling ya,there should be arrests over the whole business.

Thebrokers,who ran laughing all the way to the bank.

and of course,the 4 man business,who makes 'for sale' signs.
Im telling ya,there should be arrests over the whole business.
You mean the real estate brokers devised one of the most profitable (and not to mention, nefarious) scams in the 21st century!?! Holy shit - those craft assholes are worse than used car salesmen by a fold of 10,000. Surely, they could've taught a thing or two to the savings and loan people of 1982.

I had some experience of these people,NOT anymore,but ya know.......

As far back as the early 80s I knew one guy in particular who was raking in about £10,000 a week,from falseifying mortgage applications,thats is big money.

This guy was charging 2 grand cash to a customer [under the table]who normally would have had no chance of getting a mortgage.

Ya do about 5 or 6 of them a week,without overdoing it,nobody notices.
Most buyers got away with it because the value of the property soared,so maybe 3-4 tough years of paying say a £60,000 mortgage then,and hey presto,they find themselves sitting on SpamSpamSpamSpamSpamSpam of maybe £100,000+,sell the property,have a big lump sum deposit on the next property,bringing down repayements to a managable level,get away scot free.

I dont know why I got spam spam spam there,sorry.

Fair enough, but I don't see how the stupid are being screwed over here (caveat emptor, much???), and with that said, how would screwing them over be to the mortgage company's advantage? I mean, they're the ones who leveraged the loan in the first place. If, however, they BOUGHT the loan from a secondary mortgage lender, then maybe there's some room for someone to perpetrate a scam, but even then, the big lending houses still have all the pertinent information, i.e., age, income, credit score, purchasing history, etc., etc. My question is, why would they put themselves in that situation? That's just bad business, which obviously, isn't something 20 billon dollar companies are known for conducting.

It's not necessarily bad business. It's risky business.....I mean, if you give an ARM to someone and interest rates stay steady and the housing market does well, then everyone wins, right? Isn't it possible that big mortgage companies started doing that in order to compete with other companies who have been successful with this approach? If borrowers are successful using ARMs, (which has been the case for years until recently) then lenders who don't give ARMs are going to lose business to those who do....so you wind up with the risky lenders forcing conservative lenders to become more risky in order to compete. In other words, it becomes a positive feedback loop.

Now, I don't know it that's what happened, but that's how I would imagine a successful company could get sucked in to this practice. But yeah, I freely admit that I'm just hypothesizing....

As for the "caveat emptor" reasoning, I don't think the situation is that black and white. A professional business is frequently in the position where it can take advantage of an untrained individual in a business transaction. The reality is that these days that businesses often throw so much paperwork and small print at the consumer that it's impracticle for the consumer to glean every detail of the transaction, much less understand it. And even if they do, the consumer frequently does not have the bargaining power to negotiate a fairer transaction. That's the problem with caveat emptor.

It's not necessarily bad business. It's risky business.....I mean, if you give an ARM to someone and interest rates stay steady and the housing market does well, then everyone wins, right? Isn't it possible that big mortgage companies started doing that in order to compete with other companies who have been successful with this approach? If borrowers are successful using ARMs, (which has been the case for years until recently) then lenders who don't give ARMs are going to lose business to those who do....so you wind up with the risky lenders forcing conservative lenders to become more risky in order to compete. In other words, it becomes a positive feedback loop.

Now, I don't know it that's what happened, but that's how I would imagine a successful company could get sucked in to this practice. But yeah, I freely admit that I'm just hypothesizing.....
Truth be told, I think that's exactly what happened, but needless to say, that still doesn't, IMHO, exonerate the buyer. I mean, you know how an ARM works - given the obvious, lemme ask you a question - during a period of historically low interest rates, would you purchase a home using one as your primary financing vehicle if you intended to keep the property? This is nothing more than common sense here.
As for the "caveat emptor" reasoning, I don't think the situation is that black and white. A professional business is frequently in the position where it can take advantage of an untrained individual in a business transaction.
Sure, car salesmen do it all the time. It all starts with them asking, "So, hey, what were you looking to spend a month?"
The reality is that these days that businesses often throw so much paperwork and small print at the consumer that it's impracticle for the consumer to glean every detail of the transaction, much less understand it. And even if they do, the consumer frequently does not have the bargaining power to negotiate a fairer transaction. That's the problem with caveat emptor.
I disagree. That's why you have an attorney at your closing. ARMs aren't so enigmatic as to flummox the average person. It all boils down to understanding amortization schedules, calculating your monthly expenses, and budgeting you cash. It's similar to (but less complicated than) getting a ticket for not wearing seatbelt in a state that enforces such an ordinance - ignorance of the law is no excuse. Should this be any different?

People earning $50,000 a year combined income should know they can't carry a monthly mortgage of $4,000. Like kids in a candy store their eyes are often bigger than their stomachs. I feel sorry for people who have foreclosures placed on their homes but no arms are twisted when they apply for a mortgage. They make unbelievably stupid choices and when they don't work out they expect the government to bail them out.

I have sympathy for people who lose a job or become ill and incur large, unexpected bills but I really don't have sympathy for people who don't think and buy a house they can't afford.

I think Dharma isnt far off the mark here.
I said earlier,that the risk taken by US mortgage lenders was spread out to other financial institutions,especially in Europe.

The lenders didnt do stringent enough background checks on the applicants,there was so much money to make,it was like Christmass everyday.

He is off the mark. either the companies were in need of being bailed out because their capital base had been eroded by the lending practices he deplores. Or the risk was spread out and these companies had no need of a 'bailout'. Can't have it both ways.

Paul,

Perhaps the lenders didn't do stringent enough background checks on the applicants. The primary fault still lies with the applicants. You don't buy Chateaubriand if you can only afford Filet Mignon and you don't buy Filet Mignon if you can only afford Hamburger.

People earning $50,000 a year combined income should know they can't carry a monthly mortgage of $4,000.
And the funny part is, it was nowhere near that bad. Your average bear wasn't getting approved for being able to make $4,000 mortgage payments; they were at the limit of being able to purchase what they did WHEN they applied for the loan initially. It was THEIR shortsightedness in the extreme that led to the financial hardship they're in now. What made it "unaffordable" was when the rate they were paying doubled - IOW, they bought more than they could afford GIVEN THE TERMS OF THE NOTE, and it was their own damn fault. I mean, seriously, who didn’t think the rates were gonna go up when they were at 4.5% in 2003-04? Pffft - yeah, what a great time to finance with an ARM, eh? :rolleyes:
They make unbelievably stupid choices and when they don't work out they expect the government to bail them out.

I have sympathy for people who lose a job or become ill and incur large, unexpected bills but I really don't have sympathy for people who don't think and buy a house they can't afford.
I fully agree.

Paul,

Perhaps the lenders didn't do stringent enough background checks on the applicants. The primary fault still lies with the applicants. You don't buy Chateaubriand if you can only afford Filet Mignon and you don't buy Filet Mignon if you can only afford Hamburger.Yes it does lie with the applicants.
Tho I personally think that there was so much money going around at the time,that the whole thing snowballed,and every step on the ladder had a corrupt element to it.
Problem being,it was on such a scale,it is impossable to investigate.

Paul,

I have bought three houses in my life. I presently own two. On each occasion I first figured out what I could afford. I then went looking for places within my price range. During the course of my searches I often came across houses I would have loved to have purchased but I realized that I either could not afford them or that if I could afford them there was no wiggle room for error or something that would make money a bit tight. I passed on those houses.

It is the fault of the buyers if they buy something they can't afford. The government should not bail them out because the bailout will be with my tax monies and I don't think I should be forced to pay someone for their poor choices.

Paul,

I have bought three houses in my life. I presently own two. On each occasion I first figured out what I could afford. I then went looking for places within my price range. During the course of my searches I often came across houses I would have loved to have purchased but I realized that I either could not afford them or that if I could afford them there was no wiggle room for error or something that would make money a bit tight. I passed on those houses.

It is the fault of the buyers if they buy something they can't afford. The government should not bail them out because the bailout will be with my tax monies and I don't think I should be forced to pay someone for their poor choices.Yes Frogger,but being an honest sensible person you would say the above,and rightly so.

However,from what I ever seen over here,the demand for somewhere decent to live was so great,and a mortgage was so difficult to obtain,considering the wage levels at the time,it was wide open to exploitation and fraud.

Paul,

Home ownership is the American dream. The vast majority of Americans want to own their own home. For some it is simply not possible. It is not possible because they do not earn enough money for the downpayment of for the subsequent mortgage payments.

They don't earn enough money for a variety of reasons. A few, a very small minority are simply victims of bad luck. They have done all the right things but the gods have looked at them and laughed. I honestly feel sorry for these people.

The majority cannot afford to buy a house because they did not stay in school and get an education. When they were young they decided to stop going to school and make money. The money they were making at the time seemed more than adequate. Two hundred bucks a week goes far when your parents are paying the mortgage, electric bills, heating bills, putting food on the table. All they had to do was buy clothes and make their car payments. They were living the good life. The problem was, they were living the good life of a kid, a young person with very few monetary responsibilities. What seemed like a lot of money was nowhere near enough to live an actual adult life that was anything but minimal.

Others can't afford a house because they have poor work habits. They flit from job to job. They come in late and sometimes don't even come in on Mondays. They do slipshod work so they never advance.

Some can't give up immediate gratification for future gratification. They need the new cars, the big cars, the fancy cars. They need the fine clothes. They have to dine out and party three nights a week. They want their toys and perks now and are unwilling to save for the years most people have to save in order to purchase a house.

Not everyone is going to own a house. Some are going to rent for the rest of their lives, some through choice and some through necessity.

Yeah,Ireland and America have a lot in common.

The majority cannot afford to buy a house because they did not stay in school and get an education. When they were young they decided to stop going to school and make money. The money they were making at the time seemed more than adequate. Two hundred bucks a week goes far when your parents are paying the mortgage, electric bills, heating bills, putting food on the table. All they had to do was buy clothes and make their car payments. They were living the good life. The problem was, they were living the good life of a kid, a young person with very few monetary responsibilities. What seemed like a lot of money was nowhere near enough to live an actual adult life that was anything but minimal.
That's what my dad did. He dropped out of college to "earn money" and still today he rents his house, though it is a nice house. He has told me repeatedly that he doesn't want me to do the same thing.

Yeah,Ireland and America have a lot in common.
Most countries are like that. We're all just people.

Borg, I am continually impressed by you, Dark Fantasy, Overdose, and the others who are going to college. I am equally impressed by those who are serving in the military or who are working as hard as they can to take care of their families.

The majority of people who post on Allforums seem to really have their heads screwed tightly to their shoulders.

Wow. Is that a bit of sympathy I'm hearing from you, Prae?

Reality Nap.
Reality.

Wow. Is that a bit of sympathy I'm hearing from you, Prae?
Regrettably, yes. It's an unfortunate reality.

To be completely honest, I wish we could be more like the Japanese.

WHAT-and eat raw fish.

Sashimi is one of my favorites - I was basically raised on it. :)

I love Japanese food.

OK.
I aint a big connoisseur of food,I just eat when Im hungry.